B. BHIMRAJU PATRO Vs. STATE
LAWS(ORI)-1978-10-17
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Decided on October 06,1978

B. Bhimraju Patro Appellant
VERSUS
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

J.K.Mohanty, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner was convicted under Section 16(l)(a)(i) of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act (hereinafter called the 'Act') and sentenced to undergo R. I. for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 800/ -. in default to undergo R. I. for one month more by the Sub -divisional Judicial Magistrate, Berhampur. In appeal, the order of conviction and sentence has been confirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ganjam -Boudh, Berhampur. Against the aforesaid order of conviction and sentence, the present revision has been preferred.
(2.) THE prosecution case is that the accused -Petitioner was found selling Mendapata ghee in his shop on 29 -12 -1971. The Food Inspector -cum -Health Inspector of Berhampur Municipality (P.W. 3) visited his shop suspecting that the Mendapata ghee, exposed for sale to be adulterated he expressed his intention to is take sample of ghee for analysis and purchased 0.450 grams of the said ghee by paying the price thereof. He divided the sample of ghee so purchased into three equal parts and kept the same in clean and dry bottles and sealed the same. P.W. 3 gave one sealed bottle to the accused -Petitioner and retained one sealed bottle with him and sent one to the Public Analyst for analysis. On analysis, the Public Analyst found that the ghee was adulterated as the free fatty acid content is higher than that prescribed for ghee under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules (hereinafter called the 'Rules'). After obtaining sanction from the competent authority, the prosecution report was submitted against the accused before the Court on 28 -2 -1972. The plea of the accused -Petitioner is one of denial. He has further taken the plea that he has no shop and his signatures were obtained in some documents by the Food Inspector on the representation that those were required for the purpose of becoming a witness in a case.
(3.) THE prosecution examined 3 witnesses. P.W. 1 is Sanitary Inspector who accompanied the Health Inspector -cum -Food Inspector (P.W. 3). P.W. 2 is a witness to the seizure in whose presence the sample 'ghee was taken, P.W. 3 is the Food Inspector. In the case, P.W. 2 has been declared hostile by the prosecution since be did not support the prosecution case. Prosecution has also relied on Ext. 1, the notice under Section 11 (1 -A) of the. Act for the purpose of taking sample for analysis, Ext. 2. the receipt signed by the Petitioner in token of selling 450 grams of Mendapata ghee for Rs. 5/ -, Ext -31 the acknowledgment by the Petitioner in token of receipt of a bottle of a sample and Ext. 4, the receipt granted by P.W. 3 in token of taking 450 grams of Mendapata ghee and 0.600 grams of Motor basan, Ext. 5. the report of the Public Analyst Ext. 6, the order of sanction of prosecution. An the exhibits except Ext. 2 are in English. The defence has examined one witness, who proved that the accused had no shop and he is not a dealer in any articles including food stuff. The learned Magistrate after considering the entire evidence on record had convicted the Petitioner as aforesaid. In appeal, the order of conviction and sentence has been confirmed.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.